Here is a politician I could behind…

[Mikeoxenormous]

That’s kind of a big basket of apples and oranges. Not every decision or action is a moral imperative or answerable in a simple right/wrong dichotamy and maybe that view is what is wrong with politics today.

In the example of a jogger attacked by a jogger, there is no moderate position, obviously, but what is the right/wrong in a debate on updating our immigration laws? (Using that as example, not to debate immigration). You have all these components:
The need for high skill workers and new talent.
The need for low skill workers.
Physical border security vs. non physical
Per the above, the rights of private land owners, environmental issues, costs vs effectiveness
Huge delays in getting their hearings, decisions, deportations
Dreamers
Drugs coming in
The length of time legal immigration takes

There is probably more but that is just off the top of my head. A moderate position would look at all those components and think “ how can I get the most bang for my buck”, what can I give on in order to get enough of what I want or the most important thing I want and come away with something. A position like you describe is all or nothing. Most of time, nothing, unless your team holds enough political power to force it. That is why we are in constant gridlock.

Have to go, will answer tbe rest when I can get back on line.

he need for high skill workers and new talent.
The need for low skill workers.
Physical border security vs. non physical
Per the above, the rights of private land owners, environmental issues, costs vs effectiveness
Huge delays in getting their hearings, decisions, deportations
Dreamers
Drugs coming in
The length of time legal immigration takes

Then what the fuck good is our college and universities if we are allowing illegals to come in and do those jobs?
So keep the poor, poor because instead of employing those at a reasonable rate, you bring in illegals who work for less,
A wall works, just look at the Capitol when Nancy Pelosi went bat shit crazy and put armed military there, it worked.
Rights of private land owners should be "Trespassers shot on sight". End of encroachment by illegals.
With bodies piling up on the border, soon those invaders would realize they arent wanted here.
Fuck the Dreamers, US citizens kids come first. Get the fuck in line like those who legally come here.
Blow up the land carriers of drugs and shoot down the flying carriers of drugs. When drugs are hard to bring in, the become very expensive.
See 5th line as repeat.

 

[Coyote]

Who are "the moderates" and what to they stand for? Can you explain to me who could "moderate" a conflict between a rapist and a woman jogger? How about a mugger and a tourist? A 3rd world warlord and a captive about to be sold as chattel? A massive collectivist agenda and an individual who refuses to accept the idea that there are more than two genders, his property doesn't belong to him, that he has no rights to own weapons, speak freely even if it offends nearly everyone else and that no one should be able to make him wear a mask or an arm band with a Star of David on it?

Who is the "moderate" in US politics that can "bridge the gap between "people" who prattle on about "common sense" gun control and people who retort "control your own fucking children first".

So…looking at this, you are defining groups by their extremes. There is no “moderate” in the far right and far left, much less viable communication. But do they represent the majority of their respective ideologies? I don’t think so. Plenty of people own guns but also support reasonable regulation. Plenty of people support speaking freely but also acknowledge that speaking freely but also feel that doesn’t mean you are free of social consequences. Plenty of people were willing to wear masks in tbe early stages of the pandemic and even tolerated it later, but like anything people eventually got tired of it. Most people aren’t in either zealot camp: those wanting everything shutdown at the first whiff of a new variant and those ridiculously comparing themselves to the victims of the Nazis Because they have to wear a mask. How can you bridge the gap between those extremes? I don’t know. But I don’t they represent the majority.

There is a RIGHT Vs. WRONG issue at stake in every argument and there can not be a grey area unless you're willing to cut a baby in half.

That is a pretty extreme view…and makes it impossible to compromise on any issues.

Take for example the right or wrong of this:

People want to build a border wall. To do so means the government would have to take, via eminent domain, private property and property designated as protected wilderness.

Who’s right and who’s wrong? The people demanding a wall for border security with the onslaught of illegal immigration? Or the people demanding their private property rights be respected? Or the people trying to save endangered wilderness habitats and species?

I notice with liberals they're happy to throw the whole baby in dumpsters or chop them up and sell them as parts and hors d'oeuvres to the most sociopathic and elitist lunatics since Caligula though.

We only do that with rightwing babies. The world has enough nut jobs as it is.

You don't "moderate" between RIGHT Vs. WRONG. It's either WRONG to murder, steal, lie or cause harm to the innocent or it's not. When leftists create "grey" areas there the natural law of God begins to unravel and that is the ultimate natural conflict between lucifer and our Creator. The natural Laws of God and what is RIGHT has been in conflict with the agenda of EVIL, represented by lucifer.

Except no one is saying murdering and stealing is not wrong. There aren’t grey areas there.

On the God stuff…even God changed her mind on stuff.

Following the 10 simple commandments of humanity's earliest history would have saved mankind thousands of years of suffering. Everything beyond that is inane bullshit.

Pardon my French, but screw the 10 commandments. There is one that should matter (Actually two, combined into the greatest commandment).

”You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." and “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself"


Nothing else is needed for a civil and just society.

 

[Coyote]

Then what the fuck good is our college and universities if we are allowing illegals to come in and do those jobs?
So keep the poor, poor because instead of employing those at a reasonable rate, you bring in illegals who work for less,
A wall works, just look at the Capitol when Nancy Pelosi went bat shit crazy and put armed military there, it worked.
Rights of private land owners should be "Trespassers shot on sight". End of encroachment by illegals.
With bodies piling up on the border, soon those invaders would realize they arent wanted here.
Fuck the Dreamers, US citizens kids come first. Get the fuck in line like those who legally come here.
Blow up the land carriers of drugs and shoot down the flying carriers of drugs. When drugs are hard to bring in, the become very expensive.
See 5th line as repeat.

I was using immigration as an example, not to turn this into an immigration discussion.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I was using immigration as an example, not to turn this into an immigration discussion.

I noticed that you completely avoided the facts i presented to you about the Democrats. I am not surprised.

And to add to those facts,

It was Democrats who fought hard to keep women from voting. You do know that right?

 

[Pete7469]

That’s kind of a big basket of apples and oranges. Not every decision or action is a moral imperative or answerable in a simple right/wrong dichotamy and maybe that view is what is wrong with politics today.

In the example of a jogger attacked by a jogger, there is no moderate position, obviously, but what is the right/wrong in a debate on updating our immigration laws? (Using that as example, not to debate immigration). You have all these components:
The need for high skill workers and new talent.
The need for low skill workers.
Physical border security vs. non physical
Per the above, the rights of private land owners, environmental issues, costs vs effectiveness
Huge delays in getting their hearings, decisions, deportations
Dreamers
Drugs coming in
The length of time legal immigration takes

There is probably more but that is just off the top of my head. A moderate position would look at all those components and think “ how can I get the most bang for my buck”, what can I give on in order to get enough of what I want or the most important thing I want and come away with something. A position like you describe is all or nothing. Most of time, nothing, unless your team holds enough political power to force it. That is why we are in constant gridlock.

Have to go, will answer tbe rest when I can get back on line.

I did not say EVERY ISSUE has a Right Vs. Wrong, it's the ARGUEMENT that is R/W but I will assert that even when it comes to issues regarding how government interacts with free individuals in most cases there is still a serious R/W aspect to them. I'm not even going to pretend that I or any other anti-collectivist anarcho-nationalist has all the right answers or even consistency. In fact in many cases I can't help but be a hypocrite.

Take the death penalty for instance. There are millions of people in the country I'd like to see exterminated. Pedophiles, rapists, sociopaths, assholes who ride bicycles in traffic or drive slow in the left lane. Yet I believe they deserve a fair trial and a bullet between the eyes. Then I have to acknowledge the trial will be conducted by fallible human beings and if a death sentence is carried out upon an innocent person, all of our society is tarnished with their blood. It's not an easy position that I hold. I contradict myself a lot as you may have noticed and in general when I post the objective is to amuse others and irritated bed wetting liberal posting bots.

That said, I view taxation as theft in general. If perhaps we were allowed to "donate" 10% to "governance" and specify that we want certain amounts dedicated to things such as infrastructure, poverty reduction, military, space exploration, crime and criminal reform as well as a variety of programs that would have to produce results we would be the least taxed population on earth. Instead we have programs that never end. WARS on CONCEPTS like poverty, terrorism, drugs and (lol) climate change, ensuring that we have bottomless holes to throw treasury notes into. No sane individual can look at our government objectively, and conclude there is any measurable success in any of the endeavors it has undertaken to improve the lives of anyone that doesn't donate 7 figures to political whores.

Therefore the RIGHT answer to almost every political problem is to REDUCE government influence, because it creates a bigger problem with most of the solutions paid for political criminals designed.

Just in case it's escaped your attention, they do this shit either deliberately, or accidentally but no matter what it rarely if ever results in the enhancement of the standard of living for most of our nation.


.

 

[Pete7469]

So…looking at this, you are defining groups by their extremes. There is no “moderate” in the far right and far left, much less viable communication. But do they represent the majority of their respective ideologies? I don’t think so. Plenty of people own guns but also support reasonable regulation. Plenty of people support speaking freely but also acknowledge that speaking freely but also feel that doesn’t mean you are free of social consequences. Plenty of people were willing to wear masks in tbe early stages of the pandemic and even tolerated it later, but like anything people eventually got tired of it. Most people aren’t in either zealot camp: those wanting everything shutdown at the first whiff of a new variant and those ridiculously comparing themselves to the victims of the Nazis Because they have to wear a mask. How can you bridge the gap between those extremes? I don’t know. But I don’t they represent the majority.



That is a pretty extreme view…and makes it impossible to compromise on any issues.

Take for example the right or wrong of this:

People want to build a border wall. To do so means the government would have to take, via eminent domain, private property and property designated as protected wilderness.

Who’s right and who’s wrong? The people demanding a wall for border security with the onslaught of illegal immigration? Or the people demanding their private property rights be respected? Or the people trying to save endangered wilderness habitats and species?



We only do that with rightwing babies. The world has enough nut jobs as it is.


Except no one is saying murdering and stealing is not wrong. There aren’t grey areas there.

On the God stuff…even God changed her mind on stuff.


Pardon my French, but screw the 10 commandments. There is one that should matter (Actually two, combined into the greatest commandment).

”You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." and “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself"


Nothing else is needed for a civil and just society.

There are NO "reasonable" gun regulations. Ask anyone in a Ukranian city right now. They all want an M1 Abrams tank and an Apache Helicopter.

If you support free speech, that's it. You let people say whatever they want. The caveat is always argued with the "yelling fire in a theater" argument, just like the bullshit separation of Church and State argument. The bottom line is the 1st Amendment is designed as a right of the people to say anything they want in an effort to challenge or undermine government power.

Period.

It wasn't designed to allow the media to spread lies, incite riots and manipulate public opinion when police shoot pieces of shit. It's not there to allow people to peddle smut and porn to kindergarteners.

I, and many like myself were NEVER willing to wear a fuckin mask.

PERIOD.

On the few occasions I did so had more to do with maintaining employment, but I was in constant search for jobs that did not demand it, and the funny thing was that most didn't for a brief period, and then they got stupid about it. So I left. I've had a dozen fuckin jobs in the last 2 years because I will not wear a fuckin mask. Nor will I wear a Star of David. You may not believe there is any relevance there, but you also believe in government authority and refuse to connect the dots.

When it comes to the border wall, we are not looking at a circumstance where anyone is losing a productive parcel of land that any road has been paved on.. The entire border region is a wasteland and it was made WORSE by illegal migration. I've been there. The trash alone is devastating. The human waste is an actual environmental concern unlike "climate change". The Pacific Garbage issue is something real, which could be fixed, is NEVER brought up in leftist agitprop.

Do you want to know why? SO DO I !!!!

Yet No one ever answers.